Supreme Court: Police may not search smartphones without warrant

WASHINGTON — Police may not search the smartphones of people who are put under arrest unless they have a warrant, the Supreme Court has ruled, a unanimous and surprising victory for privacy advocates.

The justices, ruling in cases from California and Massachusetts, said the 4th Amendment’s ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” prevents a police officer from examining a cellphone found on or near a person who is arrested.

Cellphones differ from other objects a person might carry, such as wallets, purses and notepads. Police have been allowed to search those during an arrest.

Because technologically sophisticated phones may hold huge amounts of personal data, they may not be searched without a warrant from a magistrate, the justices said.

Lower courts were split on the issue. Civil libertarians had voiced alarm at permitting routine searches of smartphones, since more than 10 million people are arrested every year, according to the FBI.

But law enforcement officials said smartphones can be invaluable in solving crimes. In one of the two cases in which the court ruled, David Riley was pulled over by a San Diego police officer in 2009 for having expired tags on his car. When the officer saw his driver’s license was suspended, he checked the car and found two loaded guns.

Police then put Riley under arrest and examined his Samsung smartphone. It contained photos revealing his gang affiliation and one of an Oldsmobile that had been used in a drive-by shooting. Riley was charged with attempted murder in the drive-by gang shooting.

He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life. The California Supreme Court rejected his claim of a privacy violation, ruling that police may search a smartphone after making an arrest.

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum.

Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Stephens Media LLC is not liable for messages from third parties.

IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.

Do not post:

Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.

Obscene, explicit, or racist language.

Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.

Personal attacks, insults or threats.

The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.

Comments unrelated to the story.

If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.